4.6 Article

Microchemical identification of enantiomers in early-branching animals: Lineage-specific diversification in the usage of D-glutamate and D-aspartate

期刊

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2020.04.135

关键词

Placozoa; Ctenophora; Porifera; Cnidaria; Capillary electrophoresis; D-amino acids; Evolution; Neurotransmitters

资金

  1. Human Frontiers Science Program [RGP0060/2017]
  2. National Science Foundation [1146575,1557923,1548121,1645219]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

D-amino acids are unique and essential signaling molecules in neural, hormonal, and immune systems. However, the presence of D-amino acids and their recruitment in early animals is mostly unknown due to limited information about prebilaterian metazoans. Here, we performed the comparative survey of L-/D-aspartate and L-/D-glutamate in representatives of four phyla of early-branching Metazoa: cnidarians (Aglantha); placozoans (Trichoplax), sponges (Sycon) and ctenophores (Pleurobrachia, Mnemiopsis, Bolinopsis, and Beroe), which are descendants of ancestral animal lineages distinct from Bilateria. Specifically, we used high-performance capillary electrophoresis for microchemical assays and quantification of the enantiomers. L-glutamate and L-aspartate were abundant analytes in all species studied. However, we showed that the placozoans, cnidarians, and sponges had high micromolar concentrations of D-aspartate, whereas D-glutamate was not detectable in our assays. In contrast, we found that in ctenophores, Dglutamate was the dominant enantiomer with no or trace amounts of D-aspartate. This situation illuminates prominent lineage-specific diversifications in the recruitment of D-amino acids and suggests distinct signaling functions of these molecules early in the animal evolution. We also hypothesize that a deep ancestry of such recruitment events might provide some constraints underlying the evolution of neural and other signaling systems in Metazoa. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据